I wrote in a
previous blog (“Into the Batter’s Box…Again) of my experiences with
cancer-related issues.I closed that
little essay with the statement that at that time (November, 2014) I had been
diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, commonly referred to as CLL.I was comforted at the time by my skilled
doctor at M.D. Anderson Cancer Clinic that CLL was a very slow working form of
leukemia, sometimes not active for years, and that my level of progress of the
disease was very low.It was, he said,
just a matter of monitoring the problem with no treatment planned on the
horizon.In March of 2015 I revisited MDA (the term of affection for M.D. Anderson) and after
$16,000 worth of testing (!) was again reassured that all was under control,
and monitoring would continue as needed.I felt comfortable with the diagnosis and prognosis. After that date I felt well and hearty,
probably partly because I lost a lot of weight on purpose, and as a result
I had less baggage to haul around, so I had a corresponding reduction in
blood pressure and periods of extreme fatigue.But…the disease was still there lurking somewhere in my
bloodstream.

Fast forward to April, 2016, at my church, Bethel Tabernacle.Anyone who was a relatively faithful attendee during that time will tell you that we heard several unusually powerful and moving
sermons from our pastor, our associate ministers, and even visiting ministers
about the healing power of God, and as each sermon was delivered, it seemed
that the message was directed to me…to the point that in one sermon the
minister referred to “a faithful member of the church who is suffering from
cancer.”I understood at the time that the
minister was probably referring to one of our established members who was known
to be suffering from the dreaded disease, but even with that, the statement
came close to me, primarily because I had not advertised my own health
situation very openly.

During two separate
services, when prayer for the health-challenged was offered, the ministers of
the church anointed me with oil and prayed as the scriptures suggested, and I
felt a tremendous touch of…whatever you want to call it…virtue, healing,
spirit, or God (all the same, anyway), and I, after the second prayer, felt
that my situation with leukemia had possibly, even probably, been abated.I felt such to the point that I looked
forward to my visit to MDA in June, 2016, because I fully expected
my doctor to look at my lab work and tests and be amazed at the unexplainable positive
changes that had occurred in my blood.I
was so confident that I told my wife that she did not need to travel with me to
MDA, because I was expecting a very positive outcome to my tests.She was scheduled to work that day, and
usually she canceled her work to go with me, but that morning I drove away from
our home in high spirits.

All my tests were
done by 10:30, so I dawdled and wandered around until my 1:00 appointment with
Doctor Ravandi, who has been my doctor since 2008.At precisely 1:00 p.m. I was ushered into the
patient’s room and as usual interviewed by his nurse, then his physician’s
assistant.The PA was looking at the
computer screen on the desk asking me questions about my medications, feelings, last
six months’ events, etc., and when he finished, he left, saying that Doctor
Ravandi would be available in a few minutes.The computer was still running, however, and I, being the nosey soul
that I am, decided to take a look at my medical charts and the results of the
blood tests of three hours earlier.What
I saw (I’m learning to read those charts), left me cold.

It was abundantly
clear that my “dormant” CLL was on the move.Without getting into technicalities, everything about my blood that was
supposed to be low was rapidly increasing, and everything that was supposed to
be high was dropping like a rock. I was
stunned and disbelieving, and under my breath whispered, “Oh, God, can this be
true?”I felt as if I had been promised
a valued prize and at the last minute had it snatched away.When Doctor Ravandi entered the room a little
later, I did not react much to what he had to say because I was already a
little numb.I have described in an
earlier essay the moment I was told I had cancer in 2008.This moment was not as traumatic as that, but
it was a shock, anyway.He told me what
I had already determined, but offered the analysis that the progression of the
disease had not reached the treatment stage.By next April (my next appointment), however, he stated if the current
activity continued, we would begin some sort of procedure.Apparently the general consensus is that
until a certain level of progression in some diseases is reached, early treatment
can actually be counterproductive.It’s
sort of like when I had the blockage in my carotid artery in my neck cleared in November, 2014, the blockage had been there for at least eight years, but until the
blockage reached 70%, no surgery was planned.Doesn’t make sense, but that’s the way it’s done.

I said my goodbyes
to my medical team and headed home.I
had a hard time concentrating on the traffic because I was so disappointed in
the news I had received.I had been so
confident…so full of faith…in the expectation of receiving a great report that
I had trouble grasping what had taken place.If you’ve ever tried to pray and drive in heavy traffic at the same
time, it’s pretty challenging.Actually,
I suppose anytime one gets on the streets of Houston, praying while driving is
a necessary practice.

In a short while,
however…even before I arrived home…I began to feel a comforting spirit from God
descend around me, and I remembered some of the statements I have both said and
written during earlier trying times.God’s time is not our time; sometimes healing comes, and sometimes it
does not.If we were all healed every
time we became ill, we would all live forever, but our forever will come in the
next life, not here on earth.I taught a
series of lessons a few years ago on “Seeking the Will of God,” and I learned
that the only stated will of God in the scriptures is that “none should perish,
but all have eternal life.”Everything
that He allows to happen to us is geared toward pushing us in the right
direction to insure our eternal salvation.Healing occasionally comes, wealth may come, earthly security may come,
but those blessings are at best only supplemental to His divine plan for
us…that we be saved.It is our job to
accept His plan for each of us and follow his leading and inspiration.He promised, “I will be with you…even to the
end of the earth.” As it turned out, my blood reports continued to deteriorate to the point that, in April, 2017, I began chemotherapy treatments. However, due to the advances in medicine in just the last couple of years, my chemo treatments consisted of a pill taken daily instead of injections or intravenous procedures. As a result, I was spared the long drives to MDA. By March of this year (2019) for the first time in five years, my blood counts were all in the acceptable ranges. God moves at His chosen pace, not ours.

So in those instances when God does not move with the speed or in the way we would like, there may initial disappointment, but just as
children eventually understand that their parents still love them in spite of
saying “no,” the disappointment will quickly fade and the love for Him will remain as strong as
ever.I understand that in His time, all
will end well.I will live each day
enjoying the blessing of having His spirit near me.Healing may come, but, if not, He is still my
provider, benefactor, and soon coming King.Blessed be the Name of the Lord.

In the latter years of the Vietnam War, the United States military
unofficially adopted a controversial tactical strategy in a desperate attempt
to halt the encroachments of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops into the
villages of South Vietnam as they slowly but surely advanced toward the capital
city of Saigon and capture of the entire country.The United States in the late ‘60s had
begun massive sweeps of the countryside outside Saigon
using grandiose nomenclatures like “Operation Thunder” with the noble intent of
clearing areas and villages of the dreaded Viet Cong and restoring order and
peace to the allegedly loyal citizens of the target areas. By clearing areas of
the enemy, the objective was to slowly recapture the countryside and save South Vietnam
from a communist takeover.

The United States soon learned that the
task was comparable to holding back the tide with a mop.Moving into a village, the US military
would find a quaint, idyllic Vietnamese citizenry busy with all the duties of a
township with nary a sign of the enemy…especially confusing when just a few
hours earlier military intelligence had indicated that the place was a beehive
of enemy activity.Compounding the
difficulty was trying to identify the enemy at all…many Viet Cong troops
dressed in the standard clothing of the country villager and became part of the
village populace simply by hiding any trace of weaponry.The US military would search a village, and
occasionally the enemy would make a mistake in unsuccessfully hiding their
weapons.Retribution quickly followed,
but, more times than not, the US military was frustrated in its lack of
engagement with the enemy.This
frustration led to a logical conclusion:if military intelligence had positive proof that a village was a haven
for the enemy, and there seemed to be no evidence that the local citizens were
being cooperative in identifying the enemy, the village was put to the torch and
burned to the ground.This military
policy was bluntly explained one evening on national news when a military
official was asked about the burning of a village, and he replied, “In order to
save the village, we had to destroy it.”

Much has been written in recent years of
the general frustration of the United
States citizenry with its government.Though we pride ourselves with our democratic
process and look with disdain at other not-freely elected governments around
the globe, we are still disappointed at the seeming inability of the U.S.
government to face the issues confronting our country today and come up with
solutions to our problems.It is not a
problem which has surfaced only since Barack Obama became president; it has
extended backward through several previous administrations, and the prognosis
for the future is not encouraging.In
the richest country in the world we have one of the highest percentages in the
world of children who nightly go to be hungry, of citizens who cannot afford
proper health care, and of elderly who have no place to go for security.

Democracy, by its very name
is…well…democratic.While it is a form
of government founded upon the concept of rule by the majority, it is also
founded upon the principle that any governmental decision will be made with
general welfare of the population in mind.Democracy by it very modus operandi requires compromise,
and every law and every decision is an amalgamation of the corporate minds
which joined together to make the decision.The problem with democracy is that it occasionally clashes with
individual principle.Consider the
hypothetical situation of an elected official who has sworn to his constituents
“No new taxes!” and then has to consider a proposed bill which would take care
of a serious problem in the country…but the final version of the bill as drawn
up by his associates contains a tax increase.Although it will ease a problem in the country, does he vote to pass the
law and in doing so override his principles, or does he stand firm, waving his
flag of unbent principle, and let the country suffer the consequences?In today’s political climate, we have many
politicians who have adopted the strategy of “destroying the village in order
to save it.”Rather than reach a political
compromise on an issue which would help ease the concern of the populace, many
lawmakers would rather see the country suffer than renege on an unwise
commitment or pledge made in the heat of political campaigning…a commitment or
pledge which should have never been made in the first place.

Unfortunately for our country, both major
political parties have adopted the “destroy to save” philosophy, and it depends
upon who is in power as to what role each party plays.With the current Democratic president, the
Republicans have adopted the knee-jerk reflex of “No!” to anything President
Obama remotely suggests.Knowing that
the 2016 elections are on the horizon and seeing the light at the end of the
Obama presidential term, Republicans are digging in their heels and throwing
out every possible stumbling block to any potential political success for the
Democrats…and the country founders with high unemployment, porous borders, a
shaky economy, crumbling infrastructure, and rising crime.Please understand…I am not a Democrat and am
not a fan of President Obama.He and the
Democrats have done their fair share of uncompromising destruction.During the George Bush (43) presidency, the
tables were turned, and it was the Democrats who were stumbling blocks, and any
legislation which may have benefited President Bush or the Republican Party was
soundly squashed…in the name of “principle,” and Bush, being loyal to
Republican “principles” was not anxious to cooperate with the Democratic
Congress.

If you ask any politician in the country
about democracy, the instant response is “Democracy is the greatest form of
government on the face of the planet.”However, if you ask what the definition of democracy is, the response
will be divided into two camps.These two
camps represent two versions of the same delusion.

The believers of the first version of democracy
can quote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution from
memory.They are for a government which
is mostly kept at a distance, allowing the individual to soar like eagles to
unlimited success with the least amount of restriction.Everyone in this democracy contributes a fair
share to the government for basic services such as national defense, but a person’s
well being is a personal responsibility.In this democracy, every person is born healthy and disease free with a
marketable talent which allows for the achievement of success.Working hard and not abusing the rights of
others, these believers live fruitful lives, leaving legacies of great
influence.The difficulty with this form
of democracy is that it does not know how to handle those individuals who do
not fit into the mold.Forgive me for
mentioning the Bible, but even Jesus said, “The poor you have with you always.”In this form of democracy, if one is “poor”
it must be because he/she has not exerted adequate effort to reach the inborn
potential which is in every person.To
offer alms to the poor is to deter their work initiative.

Along with the poor are the physically challenged
be it through injury, birth, or disease.Knowledgeable people have proposed that, to cut our health costs in this
nation, committees should determine how expensive extending the life of a
disabled person would be, and, if the cost is prohibitive, health care should
be withheld.I guess it would be the
natural thing to do.After all, in
nature, there are many examples of infant creatures that are abandoned to die
by their mothers for the good of the healthy ones.So a person’s health would be a personal
responsibility and dependent upon the person’s ability to pay for services.What I find fascinating about this group is
that most believers are aggressively pro-life when it comes to the abortion
issue, arguing about the sanctity of the unborn child, etc.However, if that child is born with a defect,
well, we hope mom has good insurance.If
the child is born to poor parents, it’s the parents’ fault…but the child
suffers because the government will not offer any helping hand (hurts the
budget, you know.)

Lastly, those in this form of democracy
have not learned the lessons of human greed.One never has enough money, power, or prestige, and without restrictions
or governmental regulations big businesses will stretch ethical boundaries far
beyond the breaking point.Competition,
which is a concept hallowed in the annals of capitalism, is not restricted to
obtaining the largest share of the market but also eliminating as many competitors
as possible on the way to the top. Therefore the “pursuit of happiness”
mentioned in the declaration may in fact require the deterrence of happiness in
someone else.But, hey, that’s
competition.

At the other end of the spectrum (other
side of the aisle, as it were) is the second group of democratic proponents.Interestingly enough, they, too, are familiar
with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but at that point the
similarities end.Because the citizenry
is united under the government’s guidance, a newborn child becomes in effect a
ward of the state.Every citizen has the
right to the pursuit of happiness, but if another citizen cannot…or chooses
not…to make that pursuit, it is the responsibility of all others to “carry
those who cannot walk.”An incredible
fact of this group, however, is that the government’s concern for you only
begins at birth.Should a child be
undesired prior to birth, an abortion is acceptable with no consequence;
however, should that fetus somehow survive to birth, the child is offered
cradle to grave security.

This group has a great distain for the
natural competitiveness of man.It is
convinced of the innate greed of corporate America and therefore attempts to
control business activities and restrict success, or at least force it to be
spread around to more recipients.The
result is excessive restrictions causing hesitancy among businesses to invest
and take risks.Additionally, should
some citizens exceed the “normal” levels of success, they should be taxed more
heavily because they have more to spend.

It is in the area of “liberty” where the two
groups most contrast.The second group
interprets liberty to mean unbridled freedom.When the constitution mentions freedom of speech, it means you can say
anything you wish, no matter how offensive and no matter the consequences.There is no decorum or standard of behavior
because there is total freedom.Freedom
to choose is interpreted to mean the rights of one may infringe upon the rights
of others.Although a majority of the
group may have an opinion in a particular matter, one objection can stop the
discussion.As an example, polls
concerning prayer in schools have always shown a tremendous majority in favor,
but due to the efforts of a scattered few, there now is no prayer.It is due to the efforts of this group that
we can now enjoy pornography in our homes and obnoxious behavior in our stores
and schools.It is through the efforts
of this group that we are now enjoying the greatest federal deficits in the
history of our nation with scant positive results. There is another word for
unbridled, unlimited freedom…anarchy.

As
we enter the election process of 2016, we have seen the polarization of the two
major parties into the two camps described above.Most of the candidates offered to the
electorate subscribe to one or the other of the two positions, and that’s the
tragedy of this election because both positions are disastrous for our country.Forgive me for being biblical again, but many
times in the scriptures, the word “moderation” pops up when discussing actions
or behaviors.It is not just a biblical
philosophy but one that has been expounded by many, and it is a philosophy
which works in government and politics, also.The essential element to democracy which has become anathema to many in
the political spectrum these days is moderation…a “give and take” in the halls
of government which allows for solutions to national issues to be reached.In truth, government must be friendly to
business to encourage investment while at the same time monitoring corporate
policies and operations.A businessman
will borrow money to expand his business, knowing that he will be able to repay
the loan with increased sales and profits.At times, a government may also borrow money to invest in people or
infrastructure, but it should only be done when there is a good chance of a
return on the investment and a repayment of the loan. It must offer help and
assistance to those less fortunate while making it clear that effort must be
made to stand on one’s own feet.It must
value life from conception to burial, and make it clear there are standards of
speech and behavior which respect the privacy of others.The interesting note here is that these
positions are reflected by a majority of the citizens of the United States.Is there a candidate who subscribes to these
basic principles?If there is, he or she is probably being vilified for lacking "principles." Unfortunately, it
seems to be both those in power and those who are aspiring to power embrace only the
two extreme positions. The United State needs a healer, not a divider.

Purpose of this Blog

This blog is a narrative of my experiences over the last six decades, peppered occasionally with observations and opinions of no particular merit, except that they will be from my perspective with no intent to change, offend, nor harm anyone.

TO ACCESS AND READ A BLOG FROM THE INDEX BELOW:

(1) Note the date of posting next to the title (month/year).(2) Scroll to the Blog Archive below the index and CLICK ON THE ARROW POINTING TO YOUR CHOSEN YEAR. The months blogs were published that year will appear. (3)CLICK ON THE ARROW POINTING TO YOUR CHOSEN MONTH, and the titles of the blogs of that month will appear. (4)Click on the blog you wish to read.

If you wish to share a blog by providing a link on your own blog, Twitter, Facebook, or Google Buzz account, you may do so by clicking on the appropriate box at the end of each blog and following the instructions.Blog Index by Subject Matter:

Social CommentaryFortress America (Feb18)Memorial Day...2016 (May16)No Matter Who Won...We Lost (Nov 15)Election 2016 (Oct15)Principles and Politics (Jul13)Guns, the CHL, and the Second Amendment (Mar13)Utopian Democracy (Jan12)

FictionFinally, A Peaceful Sleep(Oct 09)Assignment: Berlin (Nov09)

Education:GED...A Second Chance (Jan13)Back in the Saddle (Sep10)A Day in the Life of Student 555-272-0894 in 2029 (Sept 09)The Benefits (?) of Ungraded Schools (Aug 09)The Plight of Education (Aug 09)